Will Zelda U blow up Fallout 4?

Oh yeah right, gee i wonder what the player will have to do in the next Zelda game, could it possibly be to rescue Zelda and save the land of Hyrule for the 100th time........Yawn....Snore.......BORING

Oh ok so your nine years old then....it could be the only logical answer........Bethesda games crush all.

Fallout will be bigger, more technically impressive, more immersive and just in general have more to do. But Zelda will be more fun to play.

Because aimlessly wandering a violent, post-apocalyptic, wasteland sandbox is going to win awards for rewriting the book game design?

But a single dungeon in Zelda is more creative than all the dungeons in Fallout 3 combined.

And I didn't care enough to argue that, but the premise that someone can't call GTA 4 a bad game? The **** out. The shooting is atrocious, 90% of the games missions come down to go here, shoot shit. Not exactly a short coming the game can gloss over. Its predecessors (not exactly high on my personal list) weren't exactly divine in the shooting department, in fact atrocious would apply there, but those games missions were more tutorials for dicking around in the toy box that was their setting as the stories were rip off other movies. And it worked better frankly.

Niko's story requires you to think he's an oblivious idiot for the 30 or so hours that game takes and lacks any self awareness until the end, under some false pretense that Rockstar is conveying irony. No they created a simpleton who easily buys into a lot of shit, goes from one contrived task giver to the next with no real input, and then the game ends with Rockstar's usual knock at The American dream. It wasn't that good when they did it in GTA 3, wasn't better in GTA 4, and the part where it ignores its own gameplay, and typical Rockstar fashion the plot checks out in the middle chapter for the sake filler (like everything that happens in Jersey) isn't exactly some compelling writing.

Stripping away fun isn't the issue, but it wanted to be more of a proper action, and it wasn't good at it. And a plot built around side characters that range from mildly decent characters like Brucie, Roman (being loose here) to completely interchangeable characters who the audience has very little reason to care for between packy, to packy's sister, or playboy's friend whose defining characteristic is that he's playboy's friend isn't exactly a highlight. It's not dismissal, it's expecting a so called great in Rockstar, to actually deliver on the great, and not some shitty storyline that only works if you ignore entire aspects of the plot to make it work.

Having problems......getting your thoughts..... together.... there bro?

Nah, 33. I just don't like crappy combat, crappy rpg elements and crappy writing in games that are largely comprised from all of the above. Great walking simulators though.

Anyways it's all preference man, don't have a stroke over it.

What the hell man ?

I'm not limiting anyone's free speech.

When did I ever say that ?

Welcome to the GTA franchise/Red Dead franchise

You seem so hard on GTA IVs story and characters, when before GTA IV those aspects barely got past copying a movie

GTA III trilogy's characters were complete caricatures.

Um sunshine I didn't make up my reaction, this is exactly what I responded to. Stripping content while relying on systems that aren't well done while banking on a plot that even by video game standards isn't worth of admiration is absolutely the stuff that would make it a bad game.

I'm harder on its story, because the older games don't take themselves as seriously as GTA 4 does. GTA stopped being able to defend its bullshit in both 4 and 5 with the words "satire" because that no longer applied, they were satire maybe in terms of the cartoons, the radio stations, the tv stuff, the way the world is presented in its love for superficial shit. But its plot line? NO, that no longer was a defense. 3-San Andreas are at least fun about it, and I will take CJ as a character over Niko Bellic any day of the week.

The Red Dead/GTA defense doesn't work either:

For starters the previous GTA games had more going on than just their shooting (which even you readily admit), and they have the bonus of at least throwing a larger variety of mission types. GTA 4? Every now and then a 4 leaf clover, a diamond search mission, or that thing where you go on a gay date. Most of the time, a whole lot of vanilla go here, shoot some dudes. Probably why I don't care as much for Red Dead, but if we're going a step further here.

John Marston as a thousand times better written than Niko Belic ever is, and his plot sans the part that his death is a bit contrived (still potent though), and that in typical Rockstar fashion the middle part of the story is entirely filler is way better thought out and goes hand in hand with the gameplay. The only thing about the gameplay that feels disconnected from that plot is that wanted system they had for being a maverick with Marston. More so while Red Dead's shooting isn't all the way there (being automated and all, and him still being a bit sluggish movement wise), the guns flat out feel better, the shooting mechanics themselves are snappier, and at least in terms of setting they didn't pretend they were making satire. They were making a western flick.

It's not being harsh as much as I'm not fond of giving them credit for something they didn't actually do well. When Rockstar delivers: Be it GTA V as a game, Max Payne 3's shooting, or Red Dead's protagonist and plot? All for it. GTA 4 as an improvement over San Andreas? A well done plot, or a good video game? No, No and Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell NO!

@jg4xchamp:

You say that GTA IV takes itself too serious, yet all your arguments resolves around the plot. (which is to me, the least important part of any video game)

It still has the whacky characters, Brucie and Yusuf Amir are amazingly funny, yet also feel like real characters unlike the GTA III trilogy that came before it.

From the moment GTA IV showed its first trailer, it was clear it was more serious. But again, I don't see how the rest of the game feels more serious because of the plot. There is still so much silly stuff in the world.

From the top of my head GTA IV had: better shooting mechanics, better driving, cars that actually feel different from one another, bikes that feel different from cars, the huge addition of physics, ... All of those are big changes to me. Especially in a game series where 90% of the missions is drive here, shoot the place up, drive back.

And you can cherry pick missions from older GTA's: GTA IV missions structure is the exact same as with the older games. Seriously, I've played every GTA game, the only one that is different is Chinatown Wars. Even then...

They didn't do the plot well? Fine, I'll agree with that.

You can call Little Jacob (one of my favourite GTA characters) and get him to sell weapons near you. There was an auto-save system, yes, an auto-save system. A small addition, but it made a huge welcome in the series, where you could die returning from a mission. Before GTA IV you had to replay entire and sometimes frustrating segments.

GTA IV added a lot, not just a more serious plot (that failed), again, if you can't see that, that is up to you.

You can call GTA IV a bad game, I won't stop you. I'm saying you're wrong though, you're focussed on the wrong stuff (plot) and can't see all the things GTA IV did improve.

WHAT?! My first response to GTA4's lack of badness was the following

it totally was. It replaced San Andreas bad shooting with more bad shooting. Took out the variety of San Andreas and stripped it down to a bunch of monotonous dull shoot outs that lacked any sense of spectacle that both its predecessors and its sequel (GTAV) did better. So improvement? The only improvement is visual. Anything else can be debated, even the shooting mechanics weren't good enough to warrant praise, much less the up its own ass story.

Grand Theft Auto 4 is totally a bad game,

Pretty sure those would fall under gameplay criticisms.

Yeah a plot also happens to be one of the things I don't care enough for in GTA, but your argument stems from things that world did, that plot was trying to do and all that jazz. If it's done lousy, then what praise does it actually deserve? You can't dismiss my displeasure with "if you don't see what it brought to the series, that's on you" then give a smiley face, and then proceed to ignore my displeasure with said execution, with "it's not as important". If those are things considered to improve the game or add to the series, then criticizing them and expecting them to deliver is totally justified.

It is trying to be far more thought provoking than it actually is, and it's that part it chokes on royally. Again it stripped things away to be more serious. The change is not necessarily the problem, the execution however is. I am fine that Resident Evil 4 decided to take Resident Evil, jump the shark, and do the 900 from Tony Hawk while it was doing it. Thing is Resident Evil 4 actually executed being an action game pretty damn well. GTA 4 on the flip side, less so.

Improved shooting? Sure. Actually good? No.
Better driving? Fair enough and if it was a racing game this would mean something, wait it isn't? And I still had to shoot from a car? and that was still clunky? Okay, still not much of an improvement.
Flying choppers is still shit? Yep
Riding a motorcycle is extremely finicky and easy to go flying off of until The Lost and Damned? **** yeah, and even then it wasn't really a fix.

Those aren't fixes, those are going from a turd, to being a turd they shot some febreeze over. Improvement? Sure, actually accomplishes the goal you want it to? Nope.

So talking mechanics, the only thing they can rely on since they took out the stuff that allowed you to **** around in previous GTA games and have fun, aren't actually good. In fact most of them are still pretty bad.

Same thing with the mission criticism. Again it's not that the game is go here, shoot dudes necessarily. But, San Andreas, Vice City, and its own sequel have more variety with their mission types. GTA 4 less so than either of them, by virtue of the fact that the game does less. Most of its missions come down you needing to shoot things, ergo most missions must now entertain you from a shooting standpoint. So you have a game that took things away that its predecessors did, has less variety than its predecessors did in the core plot, and the remaining gameplay mechanics it has actually aren't good. So everything it does to be "different" from its predecessors, all amount to improvements that would require it to be a tighter action game, and it's still not a tight action game. In fact it's a poor one.

And GTA 4 still had obnoxious checkpoints that would take you way back into the very beginning of the mission, if not out right driving to the place where you need to trigger the mission cutscene (although that was cut down to a more rare scenario, sure that aspect they at least "fixed") just to play again. If anything it was the DLC and Red Dead that actually gave the series some proper check points and a quick answer a phone and go back to the mission you were at. So again these weren't fixes, these were band-aids over some broken bones.

Which is the root of any praise for this game is everything that was supposed to make it more "mature", more "adult", a better action game...all of it wasn't executed well. I don't hold a torch for those older games, I think for all their influence (and GTA 3 is a landmark) they aren't particularly great games because they were more fun as toys to dick around in (kind of like Just Cause 2) than to actually play the game proper, because yeah the shooting blew. GTA 4 took away the toy part ,and kept the being a bad shooter part. And it's story isn't good enough for it to actually validate that short coming.

Ergo, yeah I think it's a bad game.

@jg4xchamp: I can see where you are coming from.

I disagree though. I don't think any GTA game was a turd, nor is GTA IV polishing up that turd.

In fact every single open-world game copies and still tries to copy the blueprint that GTA/RS set down. In fact, lots of open-world games are still trying to be half as alive as GTA IVs world was. AC: Unity had a million billion NPCs on screen, yet it never felt as a full-realised world like Liberty City did.

I never remember being frustrated with how helicopters conrol in GTA IV. I do remember that mission in GTA VC where you had to pick up bombs with a mini-helicopter... Grrrr.

I never wanted realism in a game or a plot where you can literally shoot hundreds of people in the face and be out of jail in but a heartbeat. So I never walked away disappointed from this game.

Like I said I have no problem agreeing to disagree (contrary to popular opinion), but the notion that neither Blab or I could call it bad, and that we chose to ignore something worthy of praise, was something I wanted to share my vehement disagreement of "oh no I saw it, I still think it sucks because x, y and z". I mean I would continue and say Kill Switch is copied plenty if really think about it, and it's not a good game. Plenty of not great games were influential, and at least a few I would would fall under the not-good category, but then that would be beating a dead horse ; p. My beef with GTA4's sense of immersion might stem from the fact that I think they made a poor New York City, but that is what it is.

I think STALKER does more with its setting, ditto Rockstar's follow ups in Red Dead and GTAV, and honestly I always thought AssCreed since day 1 had the immersion part down. They usually ruined it with that repetition in AC1, to wherever the hell they went with after that. And while the engine it is built on is ugly as sin, and it looks like butt, and technical issues, I actually think Obsidian's commitment its game world was more impressive, even if they choked on the Vegas part. Alas The Witcher games were always destined to give Rockstar a run for their money, and I would argue The Witcher 3's world absolutely gives Rockstar's worlds a run for their money.

Otherwise you wouldn't even be the first poster I actually enjoy talking games with on this forum to like GTA 4, Greyseal and Mooksi love the shit out of that game too, it's even more offensive with Mooksi he has taste that is almost comparable to mine (IE almost perfect), has the nerve to like GTA 4, won't play Metroid. Scumbag.

No, this is a fun discussion.

You mark the game down for stuff that doesn't bother me that much.

And I tend to overrate the game for stuff that doesn't change that much to the formula to you.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

And I totally agree with this.

To me world building and atmosphere are incredibly important to me. If I get sucked into a game world, I tend to enjoy the game a lot more than if I'm bewildered by it's world.

And the story can be as simple as: "Go save someone"... The importance all stems from how much you get sucked into that world, and how much you feel like a real character in that world.

STALKER has a great atmosphere. So does Red Dead.

Assassin's Creed has amazingly realised cities and worlds. but they feel empty and by the books.

The Witcher 3 has an incredible world. CD Projekt went up against Rockstar in that aspect, and I believe they did an amazing job indeed.

I wasn't even that big of a fan of GTA IV at first. It never reached the fun I had in VC.

But I kept playing it. And I also think GTA IV should be seen as GTA IV, and TLAD and TBOGT. TLAD fixes stuff like bikes, and improves checkpoints. TBOGT adds more silliness again.

But as I kept playing GTA IV (even vanilla) I found the game lost its serious nature, and I found more and more silly stuff to do. I started loving what it did right more and more (for examples: the cars were enjoyable to drive. It doesn't need to be a racing game sure, but you are in a car 50% of the time, so it should be a decent aspect of the game. Not crap like GTA III, VC and SA). And I stopped caring for the things it didn't succeed in.

I'm new to the series too so I just hope I enjoy Fallout 4 lol.

Reviews these days suck. They are nothing more than advertisement.

Lol, I remember that mission. Me and bro always use to facepalm during that (RC- Helicopter) mission. But the film industry mission called "Dildo do do" was even more frustrating (where you flying a small plane).

Yeah, that one too xD

But I also remember the final mission, be it fondly. Because that was basically Scarface.

And there was also a mission where you sell drugs from an ice cream van, to get the ice cream property.

@uninspiredcup: Yes, that is true. I didn't mean Fallout had more good stuff to do, just more stuff.

Aimlessly wandering ? Umm lets see aside from the main quest, there are literally hundreds of other quests to do, armor, weapons and collectibles to get, skills to acquire to build and upgrade your own armor and weapons hundreds of locations to discover, money and business's and homes to acquire....the possibilities are nearly endless.

Whereas re-doing the same tired story line for the past 25 years in Zelda got old 6 Zelda games ago.

I'm not having a stroke over anything, don't need to, the gaming awards and reviews the Fallout and Elder Scrolls games series received speak for themselves, whether you like them or not, they always sell and beat out everything for that year that they come out.

Hey, that's great bro, congrats. I'll keep on enjoying what I enjoy. You keep enjoying what you enjoy. I don't need my opinions propped up by reviews and awards from this joke of an industry, but if that makes you feel better, cool.

Though if you do think that reviews and awards mean something, well you might be arguing against yourself here little buddy. Zelda games tread about the same range as Bethesda "rpgs", difference being that Zelda actually comes out fairing just a bit better overall.

But again, that's your argument, not mine. Just thought you might want to keep that foot out of your mouth.

1. That's actually not true.

2. Why exactly should that matter to me? Does your gaming experience improve when Bethesdas bank account fills up?

You have a lot to learn about opinions, facts, preference, and life in general. Next time you decide to call someone a 9 year old, maybe think it over for bit.

Actually as far as the game industry goes, i have NOTHING to learn i'm 46 years old and have been gaming since 1977, Huh ? Whats that you say ? you haven't even been born yet in 1977, well ok so that may make me older, but it also makes me more experienced. i have owned every game console and portable and PC or Mac at one time or another since then.

So yes i know the difference between opinion, facts, and preference....by the way i have enjoyed Nintendo first party titles for many years, especially Zelda, and will most likely enjoy the next Zelda on the NX but to compare it to Fallout or Bethesda games in general, is just apples and oranges, and makes no sense what so ever.

By the way i tend to go by review scores now a days because i can't afford to take a chance and waste $65 on a new game only to find out i don't like it, and no i don't use rental services like Gamefly and others alike.

So chances are if the majority of review scores are 8 out of 10 or higher for a specific game then i'll most likely purchase it if i'm interested, if it's a series i've known and owned over the years, then no, reviews are not necessary because i know i love the series and will always love it, such as Fallout or Elder Scrolls.

I think i am a very rare breed of gamer, because not only do i enjoy every single genre of games on the market, but i love each and every console on the market and always will....how many other gamers can say that?

Good job, though none of that means shit to me, go ahead and pat yourself on the shoulder buddy. You've earned it.

Apparently you do have something to learn about the industry since..

1. You were wrong about Bethesda games outselling and "beating" every game any year they release.

2. You put your foot in your mouth about their critical reception when Zelda actually fairs a bit better, and most importantly..

3. You've been gaming since 77 and somehow still don't realize how meaningless scores and sales are.

Also, saying you have NOTHING to learn is quite an immature thing to say, especially for a 46 year old. I've been working in this industry for years and I still learn something new every day.

-

As for the rest of your post.

But seriously, good for you bro.

I really don't care to butt into this, but this just might be the dumbest thing I'll have read all week.

Age must be nothing but a number because you fail to show even a modicum of actual knowledge when it comes to this medium. The fact you're at that age and still let poorly articulated reviews sway your purchases leads me to believe you might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Bad analogy. GTA4 is one of the highest-rated games on Metacritic, but it doesn't have anywhere near as much presence when it comes to all-time GOAT lists, whether critics' lists or audience polls. In comparison, not only is OOT the highest-rated game on Metacritic, but it's also appeared on more GOAT lists than any other game, topping more GOAT lists (including critics' lists and audience polls) than any other game. Whether you like it or not, OOT is the most acclaimed video game of all time.

@Slimmin360: Okay, I admit "aimlessly wandering" was a bit snarky on my part so lets replace that with "exploring". But you've got to admit that Fallout 4 will not be the first post-apacolyptic, open-world sandbox game to come out in the past year. It will probably be one of the better ones, but not the first.

They will both loose to Need For Speed.

I wasn't a fan of Fallout 3, so I'm anticipating The Legend of Zelda U more.

But to answer the thread question, I really don't think Zelda U will have any effect on Fallout 4 seeing as the two are very different games and are probably going to be released with quite a bit of distance between each other. Looking like a big ol' turdburger though? Probably won't do that.